An everyday tale of family and political life with a dollop of Formula One and various random thoughts on the side.

Sunday, December 29, 2013

Alison McInnes: Scots law is not safe in the hands of the SNP

As the Scottish Parliament continues to debate the removal of corroboration from our legal system, I thought it would be a good idea to publish Alison McInnes MSP's speech to Scottish Liberal Democrat conference in September which gives a good summary of the arguments why this may not be a good idea. Alison is as committed as I am to ensuring justice for victims of domestic and sexual assault, but she doesn't think that removing corroboration will help.

I am pleased to
have the opportunity to move this motion today.

A number of key
principles must always underpin any justice system.

·It must
be impartial.

·It must
be proportionate.

·And it
must be fair.

Corroboration is
the requirement that each crucial fact in a criminal case – namely that a crime
was committed and by the accused - must be supported by two different, but mutually
enforcing, pieces of evidence.

Now, ours is the
only criminal justice system in Europe to require corroboration. So why should
we be precious about it?

For hundreds of
years, since the foundations of our Scots law were laid, it has been
established that that no individual should be convicted of a crime based on the
testimony of a single witness.

But I don’t defend
it because of tradition.

Rather, I defend it
because it protects against miscarriages of justice. The fact is that the word
of one person, regardless of their status or perceived character, is not enough. Similarly, a sole piece of forensic evidence should
not be enough to convict.

You cannot remove
this pillar of our justice system, without making the whole structure unstable.

In other
jurisdictions, in the absence of a corroboration rule, there are a whole series
of checks and balances to protect against wrongful conviction.

For example, England, Wales
and Northern Ireland have

·greater regulation of police
investigations.

·Preliminary hearings to test
the quality of evidence.

·Judges have the power to
exclude poor quality or prejudicial evidence.

·Unanimous verdicts are
required in the first instance.

·And there are wider grounds
for appeal following a verdict that could be deemed unsafe.

We do not have any of these
necessary safeguards.

But the SNP
intends to remove corroboration without ensuring that there are sufficient
alternative safeguards in the trial process to give that protection.

Indeed taken with
their other reforms – changes to double jeopardy and proposals on the
admissibility of evidence of bad character or previous convictions, and we
should be very worried. This is a profound change – sweeping aside centuries of
well-established Scottish legal practice.

Conference, Scots Law is not safe in the
hands of the Scottish National Party.

In Scotland the
Crown prosecutes in the public interest. We must guard against any shift
towards prosecuting in the victim’s interest. That would be at odds with our
fundamental liberal belief in the need for a robust, transparent and
independent justice system.

We need to defend
the principle of the presumption of innocence and safeguard against false
accusation, wrongful conviction and miscarriages of justice.

The SNP’s
proposals will mean that someone could be convicted on the basis of the testimony
of just one person, even if five of the fifteen jurors believe that they are
innocent.

Witnesses can be
honest yet mistaken. Their evidence persuasive but wrong.

And,
unfortunately, witnesses do sometimes lie to the police and in court- out of
earnest to ensure that the accused is convicted, because of the strength of
their convictions or through spite.

I am concerned
that scrapping corroboration could mean that false accusations could become
more common. The Law Society of Scotland warns that trials could be reduced to
“a contest between two competing statements on oath”.

Corroboration should not be
seen as a cumbersome requirement that blocks cases being taken to trial.

It does not
simply deliver a quantity of evidence. It is ensures the quality of it. It
reinforces facts. It confirms facts. It is a way to test the reliability and
credibility of evidence. It is key to determining the guilt or otherwise of the
accused.

We cannot allow trials to hinge on lesser
evidence. Wrongful convictions bring the law into disrepute. Justice Scotland has
said the removal of corroboration will risk “justice being undone”.

The SNP claim
that corroboration is a barrier to justice, particularly for those victims of
sexual crimes. But the research they
rely on is scant - a cursory desk top study carried out by the Crown Office. In
the absence of clear in-depth evidence, it would be reckless to proceed in
blind hope.

Now, Conference,
I am sure that you will agree with me that conviction rates for rape remain
stubbornly low.

Liberal Democrats
wholeheartedly share the aspiration to improve conviction rates. No one should be beyond the reach of our
justice system. We must strive to ensure that the victims of rape, sexual
assaults and domestic abuse receive the justice they deserve.

There are a
number of ways to tackle that – for example a much more rigorous approach to
the gathering of forensic evidence, and we could examine the idea of rape victims
being represented by a lawyer in the court, something that happens in Belgium.

However, contrary
to the SNP’s claim, there is a real danger that scrapping corroboration could
actually reduce the chances of victims of these crimes securing justice.

We might get more
cases into court, but there is no evidence that we would secure any more
convictions. The alleged victim could face a much more aggressive cross
examination in the absence of supporting evidence. Juries are less likely to
convict on the say so of one piece of evidence. More acquittals or not proven
verdicts in these cases will not help anyone.

There’s a long
list of those who warn against losing this vital safeguard.

·The
Senators of the College of Justice.

·The Law
Society of Scotland.

·The
Faculty of Advocates.

·Justice
Scotland.

·The
Scottish Human Rights Commission

The Justice
Secretary would be foolish to ignore all those voices.

Like you, I am
proud to say that I joined the Liberal Democrats because I believe in a just,
free and fair society.

It is therefore a
privilege to be my party’s justice spokesperson, to have the opportunity to
champion these values, and to lead the fight against a succession of
ill-considered and botched reforms from Kenny MacAskill and the SNP.

In the face of
their dogged desire to centralise services, increase ministerial control, and
push reforms through without hesitation or due consideration, we need strong
liberal voices at Holyrood and across Scotland.

They abolished
our local police forces. They are closing our local courts. And now, through the Criminal Justice Bill,
they want to get rid of corroboration.

We are on a slippery slope, not to independence but to
injustice.

If our justice
system fails to uphold the right to a fair trial then it also fails to serve
victims of crime. It fails to serve Scotland.

I urge members to
join me in voting for this motion. Join me in sending a message to the SNP that
it cannot cut corners when it is dealing with those issues that matter most to
us as Liberal Democrats - justice, freedom and fairness.